|
|
|
Abortion ban based on heartbeat rejected by appeals court
Legal Business |
2015/06/03 01:04
|
A federal appeals court struck down one of the nation's toughest abortion restrictions on Wednesday, ruling that women would be unconstitutionally burdened by an Arkansas law that bans abortions after the 12th week of pregnancy if a doctor can detect a fetal heartbeat.
The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with doctors who challenged the law, ruling that abortion restrictions must be based on a fetus' ability to live outside the womb, not the presence of a fetal heartbeat that can be detected weeks earlier. The court said that standard was established by previous U.S. Supreme Court rulings.
The ruling upholds a decision of a federal judge in Arkansas who struck down the 2013 law before it could take effect, shortly after legislators approved the change. But the federal judge left in place other parts of the law that required doctors to tell women if a fetal heartbeat was present; the appeals court also kept those elements in place.
Attorney General Leslie Rutledge's office was reviewing the decision "and will evaluate how to proceed," office spokesman Judd Deere said Wednesday afternoon.
The ruling wasn't a surprise to Rita Sklar, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Arkansas, which represented the two doctors challenging the law. She said the case was a waste of taxpayer time, and that the decision leaves medical decisions to doctors and their patients, rather than politicians.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Appeals court: Apple must submit to imposition of monitor
Legal Business |
2015/06/02 01:04
|
A federal appeals panel has refused to disqualify a court-appointed monitor after a judge found Apple colluded with book publishers in 2010 to raise electronic book prices.
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan ruled against Apple Inc. Thursday. The three-judge panel concluded that a judge did not act improperly when she declined Apple's request to disqualify a monitor she had appointed to evaluate Apple's antitrust policies.
A lawyer for Apple, based in Cupertino, California, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The 2nd Circuit did not yet rule on a separate appeal in which Apple is challenging the judge's finding that it colluded with publishers.
After a 2013 civil trial, a judge ordered the technology giant to modify contracts with publishers to prevent price fixing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Court won't reinstate case of man who went missing
Legal Business |
2015/02/25 11:00
|
Bobby Chen's legal luck has finally run out. The Supreme Court on Monday refused to reinstate Chen's appeal in a legal dispute with the city of Baltimore.
Chen beat long odds last year when he convinced the court — without the help of an attorney — to hear his case. But then he disappeared for two months and court officials couldn't reach him. The court dismissed the case last month after he missed a filing deadline.
Chen later re-emerged with a high-powered lawyer who said his client was traveling, experienced a slip-and-fall injury, and was unaware his case had been granted.
But the court declined to give him a second chance.
Chen had been fighting Baltimore officials for years, claiming the city illegally demolished his row house. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
High court won't hear challenge to Vermont campaign law
Legal Business |
2015/01/13 12:55
|
The Supreme Court won't hear a challenge to part of Vermont's campaign finance laws that impose contribution limits on political action committees.
The justices on Monday declined to hear an appeal from the Vermont Right to Life Committee, an anti-abortion group. The group argued that Vermont's campaign finance registration, reporting and disclosure requirements for PACs were too broad and unconstitutional.
The group argued that a subcommittee it created should not be subject to Vermont's $2,000 limit on contributions to PACs because the subcommittee does not give money directly to candidates and makes only independent expenditures.
But a federal judge rejected those arguments, finding that there was no clear accounting between the two committees. A federal appeals court agreed. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
US Supreme Court takes case, but plaintiff missing
Legal Business |
2014/12/31 11:47
|
When the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to take Bobby Chen's case involving a run-down Baltimore row house razed by the city, it looked past the fact he was too poor to pay the court's filing fee and had no attorney. But now Chen can't be found, something unheard of at the nation's highest court.
The Supreme Court agrees to take less than 1 percent of the roughly 10,000 petitions it receives every year, but it was even rarer for the court to take a case like Chen's. On average, the court takes just 10 petitions a year like his, in which the party making the request is too poor to pay the court's $300 filing fee.
But since the court agreed to take Chen's case in November, he hasn't surfaced. Dec. 22 was Chen's deadline to mail his main legal brief in the case. The court hadn't heard from him as of Tuesday, said Supreme Court spokeswoman Kathy Arberg.
The court's Clerk's Office, which corresponds with parties who have a case before the court, has tried to reach Chen by letter and email. But it's not clear he got the messages, Arberg said. And he didn't list a phone number when he asked the court to take his case. The Associated Press also tried to reach Chen by email, but the message bounced back as undeliverable. Efforts to find a telephone number were also unsuccessful. |
|
|
|
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
